tv [untitled] November 22, 2011 8:00pm-8:30pm PST
we have a similar situation as the previous case. we have a letter sent to you to decide if that is appropriate. >> commissioner? >> i made the move. >> this one is requesting a continuance as well. >> do you have a request to make? >> the length of the continuance, we are asking for three months. there is an arbitration in january. we would like to move this to february. >> what are you hoping to do in three months? >> there is a dispute between two adjoining owners related to the retaining wall and there is a binding arbitration. they have been in a lawsuit
against each other. >> the part -- the permit has been issued? >> there is a permit, and a permit suspension. >> is three months enough? >> yes. >> what is your name? >> heather wolnick. >> i have a question, are there any health and safety issues with this? >> not to my knowledge at this time. >> you have a motion? >> yes. >> motion to continue to public comments. motion to continue. >> good morning. i am the attorney for james wong, the party subject to the companion abatement order. he joins and supports the continuance based on the
pending binding arbitration in january. >> we have a motion. second? >> 43 months. >> commissioner? >> ok. >> -- for three months. >> commissioner? >> ok. we will continue that until january. >> item #2, case no. 6753, 554 fillmore street, the megan furth academy. action requested to reverse the order of abatement and assessment costs. >> we will hear from the department first. >> the appeal number is 6753.
2010, 49, 97. -- 987. this is to remove the finishes and stained glass windows. on the 19th of this year, the abatement was issued with conditions to file for a permit to justify and obtain final inspection approval. staff recommends to uphold the orders of abatement. >> any questions for the department? you have seven minutes. >> good morning. i represent the appellant, megan furth catholic academy, now known as mission dolores catholic academy.
with regards to the confusion, i submitted a letter a few days ago. it was submitted on the 15th, laying out our arguments. did the board receive that letter? ok. first of all, just on the timing, we have no issue with what the department just said except that the notice of violation was posted well after the work had already been commenced. backing up and little bit, the catholic academy bought this property in 2005 from the roman catholic diocese of san francisco. it is religiously affiliated with the archdiocese. the principal benefactor for the academy was very involved in the acquisition of the property. unfortunately, they have not been able to support that entity.
one of the ways to support the endowment was to sell the personal property and side of the church. pews, altars, tabernacle, and religious artifacts went to other religious three affiliated catholic institutions across the country. there is a network for that sort of thing, i guess. when the notice of violation was posted, that personal property had all been taken from the church. much of it had been shifted out and was on a schoolyard on a separate lot. 22a. some of it was being crated up. people saw through the chain- link fence and saw that the property was being boarded up. it phone call was made. but at that time, no more work was being done. i will not rehash the legal arguments in a letter, but one
is that you do not need a permit for that type of work. no. 2, most importantly, the megan furth catholic academy has an exemption from landmarking or defacto landmarking treatment. it is not listed on the national register. it is eligible, but not listed as a national landmark. it was treated as a landmark in everyone thought that it should be subject to heightened scrutiny. this is specifically exempt from that type of disparate treatment under 8133, caught up in government code 37375. the city and county of san francisco was well aware of this in a number of cases, the most recent being the california and nevada methodist church against the city and county of san
francisco, where it was held as not constitution knew -- constitutional and an abuse of jurisdiction to treat a landmark differently because it had a religious affiliation. in this case, we are not a landmark, but are being treated as one. putting that aside, we are here today, without waiving those arguments, but if you can help him to understand what it is, now that that property is gone, what it is that can be done to comply with the nov. the property is gone. link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885 software version: 3.0c the hands of the needy children of san francisco.
>> you want him to speak first? >> i just have a question, if i may, to clarify. this is a violation of no permit for windows? >> on june 2, 2010, the department sent an inspector up to the church. when he was up there, they were in the process of removing all of the church pews, organs, statues, as well as two stained- glass windows that were visible from the street. most of the work had been done, but not all of it. they ignore that. personally, i went up there twice during the weekend. they packed everything and moved. in my opinion, the pews,
statues, and organs, were permanently affixed to the building. the building department is not asking them to bring them back. we are not asking them to replace them. we are merely asking for them to abide by the building code and get a permit for the removal of two windows and the fixtures. >> so, are you waiting to do that? >> do you want to comment on the facts? >> organ, pews, statues, tabernacle. >> name, please? >> bob. we educate 300 low-income family kids. we are trying to sell personal property to help to sell -- fund
these kids' educations. is frustrating to be here with legal fees when we could be paying for their education. this was personal property. none of it was attached. it was going to fall down. every church has a screw that screws the pew to the ground. this is getting ridiculous. this is true the personal property. i want to make it really clear on the windows. we did not remove the windows. the wood windows are still there. we took out the glass, which was personal property, donated to the church. in section 17 of the building code it says you are exempt from getting a permit if you repair or replace glazing conformity with the code. i am a native. i have been developing in san
francisco for 30 years. i understand glass and wood windows and the importance to the city. the wood window is still there. the glass was donated by benefactor and was put into another church. i am trying to get this for the ridiculous things solved. the corrective notice is impossible to solve, because i cannot bring back stuff that we do not own. how do we resolve this so that we are not wasting everyone's time? that is what i am trying to get resolved. >> we all know what a fixture in a church is, i understand that. what i would direct to director sweeney, are the windows still there? >> right now, what you see right now is boarded up windows. what i was there, the stained
glass was not -- gone. it is not a window anymore. it is an opening. i am asking them to get a permit to document this. >> i could ask the same question. are you willing to get a permit and have an inspector take a look at this thing? obviously not. >> well, the risk -- >> you are talking about not wasting time, but you are wasting our time. >> we are just asking questions right now. we both get to the debate later. -- we will get to the debate later. >> was there payment for the stained-glass? >> yes, there was. >> so, there is not really a replacement issue here, because the material was sold as opposed
to directly replacing something that needed repair? >> correct. the stained-glass was taken out of the windows. >> because of the sold, not for repair. >> -- because it was sold, not for repair. >> correct. >> public comment? a person's or a bottle? -- persons or rebuttal? let's go public comment. any public comment? no public comment. department rebuttal? >> there are numerous items that were referred to earlier. a lot of the items required a permit. the issue with the windows, if they were doing them in the way
that they referred to, they may be could have taken out the stained glass window on the same day, the same window casing. we would have no opportunity to report -- to question. once they took out a blazing in did not replace it with other glazing, boarded it up, made it an eyesore, because it is not entirely sealed. it is potentially allowing the elements into the building and caused dry rot. -- caused dry rot. it is absolutely, without question, something done without a permit. on that issue, there is no question. if there was any good faith at all, they would try to work with us in some way to, to get a
permit to deal with that window. that we might discuss the other elements and issues. but we cannot to beyond that. there was no effort of any kind to made to comply. >> -- of any kind made to comply. >> i understand beds pews -- i understand that pews were fixed to the floor? how do we know that any of those structures were fixed to the building? >> i was there twice. pews were bolted to the floor. tehe altar would be cemented in. >> like this? >> the same kind of permanence. >> if the seats were fixed to the floor, it was assembly
building occupancy a-one, is it not? >> yes. >> when we remove the seats, it changes the occupancy, correct? the pens, right? >> right now, it would -- it depends, right? >> right now, it would be. if they were get -- if they were to get a building permit to change it from a church -- >> but when you remove them, it changes all of the other emergency definitions. >> follow up -- a follow-up to that. how long was a vacant? -- was it vacant? >> it was vacant for years. there is a lot about buildings and a change of use, going from vacant to anything. >> the vacancy was because it was umb and it was impossible to
comply. the cost to fix is probably worth more than the property. >> they were not -- i understand. it was a close compliance issue that created the vacancy -- it was a close to compliance issue that created the vacancy? -- closed compliance issue that created the vacancy? >> yes. we had tried to use it for storage, but that was all before. may i respond to member murphy's question? if it is administrative procedure and we apply for a permit, and the permit is granted, of course, we would do that in a heartbeat. it just puts us in a difficult, catch-22 situation. we do not want to weigh the
arguments and exemptions. if it is an administrative matter, absolutely. >> our director said that it was as simple as getting a kitchen remodel permit. you are following the rules of the department by doing that, as is my understanding. >> ok. any other questions? >> i do not have a question. >> i would like to make a motion. >> are we finished with the bottle from both sides? >> is anyone going to speak for the rebuttal? >> i would like to make a motion that we continue this for 30 days by an order for you to get a permit, get this signed off. if not done in 30 days, we will act the way that the department recommends.
>> i am not going to second. i think that we should uphold the order of abatement and give them -- and give them 60 days to resolve the issue. >> whatever you want. >> is there a second? >> first, we have to take a vote on the first motion. and if that fails, we go with the second. >> what was it? >> get a permit, called the apartment, did it signed off in 30 days. >> there is a motion by commissioner murphy to continue this item for 30 days to allow the appellant to get a permit and get it signed off. and inspected.
otherwise the order of abatement will go forward. is there a second? >> second. >> any discussion? but i have discussion. -- >> i have discussion. in my mind -- >> this is to give 30 days and, without the required sign off, this motion is of held? >> it is a motion to uphold? i am trying to understand the motion and whether they are expected to come back if they cannot get a permit. >> we need them to come back in 30 days. >> it is not up holding anything? >> you are the one who is talking about of holding. >> in the end, if it is not, if they have not met those conditions, it is to come back
here in 30 days. >> discussion? >> motion. >> 30 days? >> my feeling is that this is a violation and it needs a permit. the department has acted accordingly by issuing an order of abatement. even if they get a permit, the violation brought us here. i will be of holding it even if it is now or when it comes -- i will be up holding it even if it is now or it comes back to us. it has to come back to us anyway, even if we are not continuing it. continuing it and having it disappear is not something that we can do. am i right, attorney?
because continue and have it rescinded without -- we cannot continue and have it rescinded without -- >> that is right. the gist of the motion would seem to be that if they said they did the things and did them, the order of abatement would not be upheld. is that the intention? >> we have not usually just overturned the abatement because someone is willing. usually, we have hold the abatement. that's your argument for not upholding the action ends -- and giving the project sponsor time to affect the resolution.
>> from what i hear, we are not making a motion to overturn the abatement at this time, just a motion to overturn the item in 30 days and hear what is happening in 30 days. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i am ok with extending this for another 30 days. >> your first meeting after 30 days? >> first meeting in december. our regular meeting in december. >> on this motion -- >> any public comments? >> could i add one more? essentially, for meat, as a compliance issue this allows for additional time for which the appellants is willing to pursue the mediation and resolution to achieve what we have identified
already. just a little boat -- the bit more time would bring compliance. >> any public comment? >> i do not feel that i can vote for this either. primarily because there have been many people over the years that have wanted to comply. this is a situation where there is obvious noncompliance by the parties. they have very directly told us that they do not understand what the department is talking about. it is clear to us. i am not convinced that the department was unclear. i am convinced that there was a resistance to apply with -- comply with of the building code at all. i do not feel that it is fair to grant a continuance to a party that, from the beginning, did not want to deal with the department. i do not feel that they have
actually offered -- that we have all for that kind of leniency to others that have come before us. >> ok. commissioner? >> given not only the limited resources of an academy and the conversion of a building that has, for many years, needed the attention to help move things forward, in support of what their needs to be. good faith efforts within the next 30 days to reach a resolution. to meet both sides. that is my category. this is a situation where we have to have that category of understanding what is more important. finding out what is resolved as
opposed to generalizing. >> the department has been trying to resolve this issue. the resolution for the project sponsor is to try to appeal the notice and abatement action. we usually of hold those kinds of orders and give them time to resolve the issue. it is why i am voting against the continuance and making the motion to that effect. of holding the appeal in the abatement action. >> do we have a motion to continue? >> i think so. >> public comment?
>> we are going to take a roll call vote. president lee? >> yes. >> vice president walker? >> no. >> commissioner hechanova? >> yes. >> commissioner murphy? >> yes. >> commissioner romero. >> no. >> the motion fails because there are five commissioners here and we need four. >> i moved to uphold the department's recommendation to give the appellant 50 days to resolve the permitting requirement issue. >> is there a second for this motion? this motion is to uphold the order of abatement costs? >> 60 days. >> to resolve.
>> [inaudible] we have a quorum. >> you can conduct business [inaudible] >> the rules are the chicken hold a meeting if you have a quorum on the majority of physicians that constitute a commission. but you have a majority of commissioners present, but to take action do have to have a majority of the seats. >> so, we need a majority of seven? >> you would need four votes to support a motion. >> can i make a motion for continuance until we have the complete commission? >> under roberts' rule, a motion to continue takes precedence.
>> we have a motion on the floor. commissioner walker's motion to hold the baby and give the appellant 60 days. if it is not resolved, the abatement is upheld. >> did we not already vote on continuance? can we continue to vote on continuance? >> and the debate on this one? >> on mine? >> we will take a vote on this motion as well. >> any comment? >> one question. if there is a quorum and four votes out of the members present, does that not constitute a decision? >> catherine, can you please explth